Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

You are here

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. and NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY )

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE )

WASHINGTON, D.C. )

)

and ) Case No. 91 FSIP 229

)

)

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION )

DECISION AND ORDER

The National Treasury Employees Union (Union) filed a request
for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to
consider a negotiation impasse under section 7119 of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) between it and

the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, D.C. (Employer or IRS).

After investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel
directed the parties to meet informally with Staff Associate Ellen
J. Kolansky for the purpose of resolving the issues at impasse
concerning the use of pseudonyms by employees dealing with the
public. The parties were advised that if no settlement were
reached, Mrs. Kolansky was to notify the Panel of the status of the
dispute, including the parties' final offers and her
recommendations for resolving the matter. After considering this
information, the Panel would take whatever action it deemed
appropriate to resolve the impasse.

Mrs. Kolansky met with the parties on October 8, 1991, but the
issue was not resolved. Mrs. Kolansky reported to the Panel on the
dispute based on the record developed by the parties, including
their written statements of position and rebuttals. The Panel has
now considered the entire record, including her recommendations for
settlement.

BACKGROUND

The Employer assures public compliance with tax laws, collects
revenues, and provides taxpayer services. The Union represents
approximately 90,000 employees under 2 collective bargaining
agreements, NORD III and NCA III, which expire on June 30, 1994.
Employees numbering in the thousands who work as revenue officers,
tax examiners, and others with public contact would be affected by
the outcome of the dispute. They audit taxpayers' records, file

liens against taxpayers' property, and take other related actions.
In the course of their work, they may meet with taxpayers at their
businesses, residences, and at IRS offices, as well as communicate
by telephone and letter.

ISSUE AT IMPASSE

The dispute concerns whether employees with public contact
should be permitted the option of identifying themselves by their
last names and registered pseudonyms.

1. The Union's Position

The Union proposes either:

I. Employees shall "register" a pseudonym with their supervisors.

Employees shall only use the name registered with their
supervisors; or

II. A. Employees shall only be required to identify themselves by

last name, e.g., Mr. Jones, Ms. Smith.

B. If an employee believes that due to the unique nature of the
employee's last name, and/or nature of the office locale, that use
of the last name will still identify the employee, then the
employee may "register" a pseudonym with the employee's supervisor.
In that case, only the registered pseudonym will be used.l

Employees who deal with the public should be permitted to use
one of these options to protect them from potential harassment by
taxpayers. They have received threats, obscene telephone calls at
work and at home, and had false interest and dividend reports (Form
lO99s) and false liens filed against them and their property.
Groups such as the Church of Scientology and the Sheriff's Posse

Comitatus also have reportedly harassed revenue officers and other
IRS employees. The latter group has listed employees on wanted

1/In 1985, the Union initiated mid-term bargaining over
protective measures. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)
found the Union's proposals on use of pseudonyms negotiable.
National Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue Service, 27
FLRA 460, 463 (1987). It specifically rejected the Employer's
argument that "its mission--collecting taxes in a manner that
warrants the highest degree of public confidence in the integrity,
efficiency, and fairness of the Agency--can be achieved only by
requiring employees to use their own full names and not pseudonyms
or last names only in order to identify themselves when performing
job-related duties requiring contact with the public."

posters, tried them in absentia, and sentenced them to death.
According to a 1988 Federal Bureau of Investigation report, more
IRS enforcement officers suffered assaults than any other law
enforcement group in the Federal Government--over 5 times as many
as experienced by Drug Enforcement Administration officers with the
second highest assault rate. Employees in Automated Collection
Sites (ACS) in a number of locations including Santa Ana, San
Diego, and Laguna Niguel, California, have been permitted to use
pseudonyms without the administrative problems or complaints that
the Employer anticipates. Its position that taxpayers would be
unable to identify employees handling their cases is without merit
because all pseudonyms would be registered with supervisors. The
practice at Laguna Niguel, however, was discontinued for new
employees during the pendency of the case before the Panel.

2. The Employer's Position

The Employer essentially proposes that the Panel order the
Union to withdraw its proposal on pseudonyms. While it also is
concerned with the safety of employees, adequate protection is
provided by training employees to deal with potentially dangerous
taxpayers, encouraging them to withdraw and seek assistance in
dangerous situations, providing armed escorts and police
protection, and prosecuting perpetrators. The risks, including the
possibility of exposure to "potentially dangerous and/or
life-threatening situations," are referred to in employees'
position descriptions. Determined individuals might circumvent the
thin shield of a last name or a pseudonym, and against assaults,
such devices would be useless. On the other hand, figures for
Laguna Niguel show that incidents of threats and assaults have
declined from 54 to 32 and 3 to 0, respectively, between fiscal
years 1991 and 1992, suggesting that such measures are unnecessary.
In addition, keeping track of pseudonyms in its large, computerized
system would be a costly administrative burden.

Finally, recent Congressional scrutiny, including passage of
the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights,2 makes how the IRS is viewed by the
public a sensitive issue. The Union's proposal, if adopted, would
undermine its efforts to maintain open and honest dealings with the
public necessary to foster voluntary compliance with the tax laws.

Indeed, the public has a right to know with whom it is dealing.

CONCLUSIONS

Having considered the arguments and evidence in this case, we
shall order the parties to adopt Union Proposal II. We are 2 The
Taxpayers Bill of Rights, 26 U.S.C. § 7801 et. sea., deals with
matters such as the taxpayer's right to have the auditing procedure
explained, be represented during the process, record sessions with
IRS employees, etc. persuaded that the option of using last names
or registered pseudonyms is reasonable for those employees who face
harassment both on and off the job. We do not anticipate, however,
that all or even a majority of employees will exercise such options
since most interactions between employees and the public are
without incident. Although it is clear that the Employer shares the
Union's concern about protecting employees, besides training, it
mainly offers post-incident remedies rather than preventive
measures such as the instant proposal. We also are not persuaded
that the public will react negatively, as the Employer predicts, to
the news that some IRS employees use pseudonyms. In this regard,
the public may well be able to understand the need for such
practical protections when employees are subject to harassment and
threats. Since the pseudonyms will be registered, taxpayers will be
able to re-establish contact with the same employee as needed.
Finally, should mission or administrative problems arise from the
use of pseudonyms, the parties can deal with such difficulties
through future negotiations.

ORDER

Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Federal Service

Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, and because of
the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute during the
course of the proceedings instituted under the Panel's regulations,
5 C.F.R. § 2471.6(a)(2), the Federal Service Impasses Panel under
§ 2471.11(a) of its regulations, hereby orders the following:

The parties shall adopt the following provision:

A. Employees shall only be required to identify themselves by last

name, e.g., Mr. Jones, Ms. Smith.

B. If an employee believes that due to the unique nature of the
employee's last name, and/or nature of the office locale, that use

of the last name will still identify the employee, then the
employee may "register" a pseudonym with the employee's supervisor.
In that case, only the registered pseudonym will be used.